[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C

Mon Nov 20 16:07:46 UTC 2017

George:

Your referencing of the Wikipedia link to fear mongering illustrates exactly why I have taken personal offense at its use. I have provided a dispassionate analysis of the obstacles facing adoption of a Final Report containing  Option 1/A. I have not promulgated exaggerated rumors, sought to needlessly arouse fears, attempted psychological manipulation, or otherwise sought to sway WG members on the basis of fear. I further note that other definitions of the term associate it with deception and a desire to instill needless alarm.

As for my Thelma and Louise metaphor, my intent was to humorously conjure up a ready visual image for the concept of this WG voluntarily adopting a "poison pill" amendment that could doom acceptance of its entire work product. I seriously doubt that this cinematic reference instilled fear in any WG member.

A few minutes ago I again repeated the numerous policy arguments and pragmatic process considerations that are the basis for my non-support of Option 1/A and support for Option 2/C. There is no fear mongering in them.

I have spent eleven years as a participant in the ICANN community and have striven to develop a reputation for fact and policy based reasoning. I have been on the winning and losing sides of policy debates, and I have never attempted to smear the reputation, or question the motivation, of a party on the prevailing side. I cannot allow such allegations to stand unchallenged, especially as your allegation that the co-chairs have engaged in "fear mongering" follows upon what I believe to be equally baseless allegations that we have abused our co-chair positions to pressure the WG to deliver a particular policy result. 

Any objective review of this WG's meeting transcripts and email list will likely show that you have been accorded more time and words to articulate your views that any other WG member. The policy options that you favored were two of the three options presented for WG consideration on our preliminary consensus call. On our last call I stated that the WG would welcome the submission of additional language relating to Option 2/C from you for WG review and consideration prior to a final consensus call. And you and other supporters of Option 1/A are free to include a Minority Statement in our Final Report if it does not achieve consensus support. In sum, your views have been accorded every procedural right and courtesy in the operation of this WG, and the fact that they have not received consensus support is, in my personal opinion, due to their inherent   policy defects and not to any impermissible psychological manipulation undertaken by the co-chairs.

In conclusion, I believe that your allegation of fear mongering is a direct assault upon my character and reputation and a violation of the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en . I will provide you with one last opportunity to retract that allegation. If you do not I will be compelled to seek redress by other available means.

Philip

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:23 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C

Hello,

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:
> This co-chair categorically reject your reckless charge that I have engaged in "fear-mongering".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering

"Fearmongering or scaremongering is the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.[1][2][3] This can take the form of psychological manipulation that uses fear-based tactics (scare tactics) including exaggeration and usually repetition to influence the public in order to achieve a desired outcome.[citation needed] It is a tactic used to scare or put fear into those viewing a campaign/advertisement and influence the outcome based on fear."

You've repeatedly used the "Thelma and Louise" metaphor,

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000872.html

driving off a cliff, that the entire report would get rejected if Option C wasn't selected. These aren't "new facts" or "new analysis"
being used to push Option C. They're fear and politics, plain and simple. The "art of the possible", as though this is a negotiation, rather a truth-seeking exercise. I'm not the only one that recognizes this -- see the messages by Paul Keating and Mike Rodenbaugh
yesterday:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000905.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000906.html

> Please stick to the substance ands stop making reckless and unfounded allegations about others' motivations.

When I have in the past, you've said that:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000877.html

"I am not going to even begin to attempt  a point-by-point response to your extremely long message."

My message you refer to:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000876.html

is 1,908 words, according to Wordcounter.net. According to Medium.com, the average adult reads at 275 Words Per Minute:

https://help.medium.com/hc/en-us/articles/214991667-Read-time

so apparently a 7 minute long article is "extremely long". Of course, many of us have above average in reading skill, given our higher education, etc. Lawyers (I'm not one) should have especially high reading skills. I contrast those 7 minutes with PDP conference calls that go for 90 minutes week after week after week for 3 years. A claim that those 7 minutes of reading time would make it an "extremely long message" doesn't seem correct to me.

But, let me try to make it easy......just respond to these specific questions:

1. The October 12, 2017 "Options Document" (edited to remove that "error" above) is at:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/WEBINAR+2017-10-12+IGO-INGO+Access+to+Curative+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms

The very first paragraph claims that:

" Other options that were discussed previously by the Working Group have not been included in this proposal based on the co-chairs’
assessment either that their essential elements have been adapted and incorporated into Options A, B, and/or C (below), or that they were based on an incomplete reading of the applicable rules (i.e. the previous Option 5)."

Where is Option 6 adapted and incorporated into Option C? Here's a reminder of what Option 6 was:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.html

I assert that the options document mislead the working group by falsely stating that Option 6 was adapted and incorporated into the Option C. Yes or no? If Option 6 was adapted and incorporated into Option C, show us where it is in that document.

[while I acknowledge I've been invited to resubmit Option 6 again to this PDP, I want you to acknowledge that the edited October 12, 2017 document makes that false claim above, and thus mislead the working group]

2. There is a long preface (the entire first page of that October 12th document, and the first paragraph of the 2nd page) criticizing Options A and B. Show me just a single statement that is negative towards Option C in that document that was prepared as "co-chairs" (not as individual members with a viewpoint). If you can't identify a single negative statement towards Option C, how is that not a biased document, and a misuse of the positions as co-chairs?

I think those are enough, for now. I wouldn't want to make this email "too long" (under 700 words, so that's less than 3 minutes reading time for an average adult). The answers should be illuminating to this group.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp